Using #meToo movement to justify a take down on erotic and pornographic content is ridiculous.
I mean they gonna take their yaoi VNs away from fujoshis because they get harassed at work ?
"B-but gamergaters likes sexual content" everyone f*in does.
Using #meToo movement to justify a take down on erotic and pornographic content is ridiculous.
I mean they gonna take their yaoi VNs away from fujoshis because they get harassed at work ?
"B-but gamergaters likes sexual content" everyone f*in does.
Hynad said: So... Some people here take issue with a company not wanting to come across as misogynistic? Hmmmm.... |
How is sexual content misogynistic by nature ?
If it is, the solution is to write better sexual content. Not ban it.
this will just enrage all the lolicons
While this specifically isn’t a huge deal to me, I really hope the censorship doesn’t grow and expand, Sony having bad relations with most AAA western developers, as well as Sony censoring things like violence and harsh. I can understand not wanting to putt nubile young looking girls in games, but that should be the harsh limit. Sony has no reason to their first party and third party partners that they have to gimp their games in any way. It might help keep the names of some Sony staff clean, but it would inevitably ruin PlayStation.
Probably with trying too hard to avoid offending people is that the effect never fails to snowball and turn things like entertainment into utter trash. South Park demonstrated this perfectly many years ago.
BraLoD said: PS5 news as so damn good, quick let's make bad articles about Sony. |
This is considered a good article . . . Also if this is negative article in your eyes, these are literal words from sony themselves.
vivster said: It will certainly an interesting subject to future scholars how the sexual liberation of the 20th century will be completely undone by the 21st century. |
If they can talk and research about this topic. The undoing of the sexual revolution is one thing, but I see the return of ideological restrictions on science. Some researchers are reluctant to share their research on differences based on biological sex because they fear backlash. And that is worse in my opinion.
Hynad said: So... Some people here take issue with a company not wanting to come across as misogynistic? Hmmmm.... |
Whatever the reason brought forward, people take issue with restricting the freedom of artistic decisions made in their prefered art form.
These restrictions are nothing new by the way. Books, imagery, music has always been restricted based on "inappropriate" content, be it the depiction of religion, sexuality or violence in a context deemed inappropriate.
As an example, to this day the photographs from World War One collected under the title "Krieg dem Kriege" draws regular opposition if an exhibition is made, as the content is deemed inapropriate. Hell yeah it is, because showing the war for what it really does is apparently inappropriate.
Not something I approve of, developers shall be free to release what their vision is, we already have rating board for the overly sensitive over pixel porn or violence.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Otter said:
lol, I think people completely miss the mark in terms of sexualisation comparisons. Idealised =/=Sexualised. Emphasis on crotch shots... Military outfits centred on sideboobs lol...Compelely random outfits there to sell the anatomy
|
" Idealised =/=Sexualised."
in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing
"sexualisation is not being cut out of games."
it is and honestly i wouldn't have a problem with that if the reason was logical and consistent
"His whole outfit is also functional, whereas the latter is literally about sexualisation."
men and women in terms of their dress often typically display this difference, in that men generally dress more practically whereas women dress to emphasize their sexual appeal more
this is why makeup, heels, low cut dresses etc etc etc exist but of course its not politically correct to point out these differences in how men and women present themselves
this is why its pretty idiotic for sjws to claim "WOMEN NEED TO BE DEPICTED THE SAME AS MEN IN GAMES OR ELSE BOYS WILL BE SOCIALISED TO THINK WOMEN ARE SEXUAL OBJECTS"... the obvious rebuttal is what are you going to do about the way real women present themselves? if this argument is actually valid (which its obviously not) why wouldn't the kim kardassians and ava roses of the world do the same?
"Emphasis on crotch shots... Military outfits centred on sideboobs lol...Compelely random outfits there to sell the anatomy"
its almost as bad as if they were shirtless
"If Ryu & the other male charcters were sexualised the same"
men and women are not the same and are attracted to different things
"more varied body types and not just steroid bodies"
i don't think you are going to find many people who find fat/short men more attractive than muscular/tall men
"Random nudity creeping into male outfits where it doesn't belong & outfits existing just to tease"
being shirtless is not nudity? how far would we need to go to put men on the same level as women wearing at the very least dancing outfits?
Last edited by o_O.Q - on 18 April 2019twintail said:
I dislike censorship as must as the next guy but using violence as an argument against underage girls being sexualised only shows that you are incapable of justifying said sexualisation of undergage girls. Both issues are not the same thing. Acceptance of one does not mean acceptance of the other. And the fact that you use the notion that men in an idealised form (men, not underage boys) to justify your disdain for a policy involving underage girls is truly bizarre. |
" but using violence"
yeah i beat up my keyboard pretty bad sometimes especially when i play destiny on pc but i don't see how that is relevant to this discussion... or did you have some other example of violence i was advocating for?
you mean because i said fuck sony?... i'm saying fuck sony because they've disappointed me and i will make sure to never buy their products again
"you are incapable of justifying said sexualisation of undergage girls."
" to justify your disdain for a policy involving underage girls is truly bizarre."
did you read the thread title, the op or my post? i had a suspected not from the earlier part of your post i read and now i'm certain that you haven't read all 3 or if you have then you haven't digested them